Court Filing
Filed: 12/6/2024 Fourth Judicial District, Ada County Trent Tripple, Clerk of the Court By: Deputy Clerk-Smith, Margaret LATAH COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, JR., ISB No. 2613 PROSECUTING ATTORNEY ASHLEY S. JENNINGS, ISB No. 8491 SENIOR DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY Latah County Courthouse 522 S. Adams Street, Ste. 211 Moscow, ID 83843 Phone: (208) 883-2246 paservice@latahcountyid.gov IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ADA STATE OF IDAHO, Case No. CR01-24-31665 Plaintiff, STATE'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO V. SUPPRESS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT BRYAN C. KOHBERGER, Defendant. RE: PENNSYLVANIA SEARCH WARRANT FOR MR. KOHBERGER'S PERSON COMES NOW the State of Idaho, by and through the Latah County Prosecuting Attorney, and respectfully submits the following objection to the Defendant's " Motion to Suppress and Memorandum in Support RE: Pennsylvania Search Warrant for Mr. Kohberger's Person. " 1 The Defendant's instant motion regarding the Pennsylvania search of his person 1 Defendant's filing refers to a " contemporaneously filed Motion for an Order suppressing all evidence gathered by law enforcement as a result of the entry into and search of Mr. Kohberger's person in Pennsylvania. " However, the State is not aware of a separate " contemporaneous " filing, so the State's response is only to the contents of the Defendant's singular " Motion to Suppress and Memorandum in Support. " STATE'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT RE: PENNSYLVANIA SEARCH WARRANT FOR MR. KOHBERGER'S PERSON 1 substantively parallels the Defendant's Motions to Suppress " Pennsylvania Search Warrant for 119 Lamsden Drive, Albrightsville, PA and Statements Made " and for Mr. Kohberger's vehicle. To avoid unnecessary repetition, the State incorporates herein the " State's Objection to Defendant's Motion to Suppress and Memorandum in Support RE: Pennsylvania Search Warrant for 119 Lamsden Drive, Albrightsville, PA and Statements Made, " which itself further incorporates the State's responses to the Defendant's Franks Motion and " Motion to Suppress RE: Genetic Information. " Regarding the Defendant's represented " FACTS, " the State respectfully refers the Court to Defendant's Exhibits A and B filed in support of his Motion to Suppress " RE: 119 Lamsden Drive, Albrightsville, PA and Statements Made " as opposed to relying on the Defendant's subjective summary and interpretation that begins at p. 2 of the instant motion. The State further incorporates its Exhibits S-1 through S-6 to its Objection to Defendant's Motion to Suppress the 119 Lamsden Drive search warrant. APPLICABLE LAW In response to the Defendant's discussion (starting at p. 3) regarding applicable law, the State respectfully refers the Court to its written response (beginning at p. 2) of the State's Objection to the Defendant's Motion RE: 119 Lamsden Drive and incorporates the same herein. VALID SEARCH WARRANTS Beginning at page 5 of his instant motion, the Defendant asserts that " The Affidavit Submitted in Support of the Application for the Issued Search Warrants Recklessly or Intentionally Omitted Material Facts. " Substantively, this section of the Defendant's motion merely refers to the Defendant's separate Franks motion and argument. By way of preliminary response, the State notes that Idaho law clearly states that if " a search is conducted pursuant to a STATE'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT RE: PENNSYLVANIA SEARCH WARRANT FOR MR. KOHBERGER'S PERSON 2 warrant, the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the search was invalid. " State v. Wilson, 130 Idaho 213, 215 (Ct. App. 1997) citing to State v. Kelly, 106 Idaho 268 (Ct. App. 1984). Idaho recognizes the United States Supreme Court's analysis and holding that " great deference is paid to the magistrate's determination " for probable cause. Id. citing to Illinois v. Gates, 462 US 213 (1983) and Spinelli v. United States, 393 US 410 (1969) and State v. Josephson, 123 Idaho 790 (1993). As demonstrated by the Pennsylvania search warrants (beginning at p. 5 of Exhibit A to Defendant's Motion to Suppress RE: Search Warrant for 119 Lamsden Drive, and Exhibit S-4 to the State's Objection to Defendant's Motion to Suppress RE: 119 Lamsden Drive): the searches questioned by the Defendant, including the search of the Defendant's person, were done pursuant to specific Pennsylvania-issued search warrants based on substantial probable cause. As to the balance of Defendant's submissions, the State respectfully refers the Court to, and incorporates herein, the State's separate responses to the Defendant's Franks motion and Motion to Suppress RE: IGG (Investigative Genetic Genealogy), and the State's separate responses to the Defendant's Motions to Suppress RE: Pen Trap and Trace and AT & T account. CONCLUSION Based on the above, the State respectfully request that the Court deny the Defendant's Motion to Suppress the search warrant for the Defendant's person in Pennsylvania. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 6th day of December 2024. William W. Thompson, Jr. Prosecuting Attorney STATE'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT RE: PENNSYLVANIA SEARCH WARRANT FOR MR. KOHBERGER'S PERSON 3 CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the STATE'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT RE: PENNSYLVANIA SEARCH WARRANT FOR MR. KOHBERGER'S PERSON were served on the following in the manner indicated below: Anne Taylor Mailed Attorney at Law E-filed & Served / E-mailed PO Box 2347 Faxed Coeur D Alene, ID 83816 info@annetaylorlaw.com Hand Delivered Dated this 6th day of December 2024. Se STATE'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT RE: PENNSYLVANIA SEARCH WARRANT FOR MR. KOHBERGER'S PERSON 4